checked |
SPCUClerkbot (talk | contribs) BOT updates, actions follow: (Removing duplicate checkuser template on master account) (listing accounts notified) |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
{{endorse}} – I highly doubt that coincidence brought WizardSleeve/IP to the discussion out of thin air. It's either a blatant attempt at meatpuppetry, or the two registered accounts are in fact the same person. Hence, we could use CU to look for any technical evidence between the two registered accounts. [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
{{endorse}} – I highly doubt that coincidence brought WizardSleeve/IP to the discussion out of thin air. It's either a blatant attempt at meatpuppetry, or the two registered accounts are in fact the same person. Hence, we could use CU to look for any technical evidence between the two registered accounts. [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments |
|||
⚫ | |||
;Conclusions |
;Conclusions |
Revision as of 00:43, 29 August 2009
FuriousJorge
- FuriousJorge (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 27 2009, 18:41 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- WizardSleeve (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
This IP shows up after the suspected master account relays that one more person is needed to decide the outcome of a discussion on a talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- LOL! Let me know how the investigation turns out.FuriousJorge (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status –
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is vote fraud, but not in the traditional sense. It is vote fraud in the process of determining if article consensus exists amongst editors. CU is needed as it is not clear cut, and the IP may not be related, but there is a good chance it is.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- For future reference, you're better off waiting for more than a single edit before requesting CU. Nathan T 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed – I highly doubt that coincidence brought WizardSleeve/IP to the discussion out of thin air. It's either a blatant attempt at meatpuppetry, or the two registered accounts are in fact the same person. Hence, we could use CU to look for any technical evidence between the two registered accounts. MuZemike 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Confirmed as . WizardSleeve (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is
Unlikely but same geographic region/ISP; possible meat puppet. Brandon (talk) 00
- 43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions